1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
|
Return-Path: <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71CB6BDA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:04:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com (mail-la0-f45.google.com
[209.85.215.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0544243
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:04:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lanb10 with SMTP id b10so73075756lan.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=0Q66bDgQxDcSfjXmznhQVHA68VNKuH12IlW3QIyLMGI=;
b=y7V9wldobLd3OHDduLNyCKYzwCaaDKCdpZkHZC51RSpgJRiPJdBnQ1bRrCaBNLTEzI
s+6RI1ArYvYCJqz9XdJr7/fwvB3HBmfBsnC6e4Wwh56I8ZWvhw3/cnx4GfD2+2Y0MEEJ
2S+10KnsrlPrhkSaD7fDEAteo8oDxGFQRx5W5BLLtAxKmfdIbt+xnrWoXbKIozyWxhAo
VIMxpyafPhGqyiv8xPe29Zd+cHqWU8uiq0Jm681pX8xGWpvWCu3nK836ULs85tJY55FL
znoCSiC4JAM1I7NZ5yYoiA6QUFIIyp5Zxi2+sUqFuBfGipu0rGnLJXv8y0WYi4RdmTms
YkZw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.43.228 with SMTP id z4mr21301681lal.99.1441731856975;
Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.41.148 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAG0bcYw=k_z82buUQ_kApmPgSenNy6FEsdXotLaS4Gn-kZbrKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG0bcYzzg4yeQvd27PZu5Fqv1ULS3cKeQHaRZ2zPcM3OASw1cg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMztJx1cBFhNOwMgBHJGPmBNPqsTdQbCCjFBmDBSBfTMMUg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAre=yRawFU_WMdE+ReemscYD33ez1PF6VhU2FmWo2fAEcw_Xw@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTERUFEFgJ4quz2dWLRw9fD3DkBp-6RO4cuvdBGV2MSyhw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAG0bcYzBCsg9xNLGmu4S=PEPjtbd2iBLH52ryswbkRM23OqquA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTFQhFusR5jkEMvRdxDVLZPzWSW5hUHpXoON-K-+xJjpNA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAG0bcYw=k_z82buUQ_kApmPgSenNy6FEsdXotLaS4Gn-kZbrKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:04:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T1a5kbtw=SQrdXyp32LF7gA9LMShPMYEefP4arb6SQcHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Washington Sanchez <washington.sanchez@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2280c325b92051f3f5b75
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft
discussion
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 17:04:19 -0000
--001a11c2280c325b92051f3f5b75
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 3) Let me put it another way, I've read that both Gavin and yourself are
> favorable to a dynamic limit on the block size. In your view, what is
> missing from this proposal, or what variables should be adjusted, to get
> the rules to a place where you and other Core developers would seriously
> consider it?
>
I'm not clear on what problem(s) you're trying to solve.
If you want blocks to be at least 60% full, then just specify a simple rule
like "maximum block size is 1.0/0.6 = 1.666 times the average block size
over the last N blocks (applied at every block or every 2016 blocks or
whatever, details don't really matter)".
If you want an upper limit on growth, then just implement a simple rule
like "Absolute maximum block size is 1 megabyte in 2016, 3.45 megabytes in
2017, and increases by a maximum of 3.45 times every year."
If you want me to take your proposal seriously, you need to justify why 60%
full is a good answer (and why we need a centralized decision on how full
blocks "should" be), and why 3.45 times-per-year is a good answer for
maximum growth (and, again, why we need a centralized decision on that).
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a11c2280c325b92051f3f5b75
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>3) Let me put it another w=
ay, I've read that both Gavin and yourself are favorable to a dynamic l=
imit on the block size. In your view, what is missing from this proposal, o=
r what variables should be adjusted, to get the rules to a place where you =
and other Core developers would seriously consider it?</div></div></blockqu=
ote><div><br></div><div>I'm not clear on what problem(s) you're try=
ing to solve.</div><div><br></div><div>If you want blocks to be at least 60=
% full, then just specify a simple rule like "maximum block size is 1.=
0/0.6 =3D 1.666 times the average block size over the last N blocks (applie=
d at every block or every 2016 blocks or whatever, details don't really=
matter)".</div><div><br></div><div>If you want an upper limit on grow=
th, then just implement a simple rule like "Absolute maximum block siz=
e is 1 megabyte in 2016, 3.45 megabytes in 2017, and increases by a maximum=
of 3.45 times every year."</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>=
</div>If you want me to take your proposal seriously, you need to justify w=
hy 60% full is a good answer (and why we need a centralized decision on how=
full blocks "should" be), and why 3.45 times-per-year is a good =
answer for maximum growth (and, again, why we need a centralized decision o=
n that).<br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signatu=
re">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div>
</div></div>
--001a11c2280c325b92051f3f5b75--
|
